MSNBC’s Harris-Perry: Life Begins When Parents Say It Begins, Not Science

Leftists bill themselves as science-based in their thinking. It’s a convenient pose they’re willing to scrap when it gets in the way, though, as Melissa Harris-Perry proves. In a segment on — not making this up — the royal baby, Harris-Perry lays out when she believes that life begins.

“When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling – but not science,” Harris-Perry said on her show Sunday. “The problem is that many of our policymakers want to base sweeping laws on those feelings.”

That’s some dangerous thinking, opening the door even further to infanticide. But it’s typical of a political philosophy that rejects facts in favor of feelings. It is odd, though, considering that Harris-Perry is on the record stating that parents do not have any rights over their own children. In Harris-Perry’s world, parents determine when life begins but then have no inherent right to direct how that child is raised. You can birth ‘em, but the state will raise ‘em.

Harris-Perry has her facts regarding new abortion-related laws backwards. The pro-life side is basing new laws regarding both health standards at clinics and the timelines when abortions are allowed on science. Better standards lead to protecting women. Technology has shown that babies in utero feel pain, and has moved the point of viability farther forward with each passing year.

I’m obviously not going to sit here and argue with someone who thinks it’s appropriate to wear tampons as earrings on a network broadcast. Harris-Perry’s mind is made up. Fortunately most Americans are tuning her out and see reason: The country becomes a bit more pro-life as technology and science improve our understanding of how we were all fearfully and wonderfully made.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

There is REASON, there is LOGIC, for arguing that personhood begins at conception. There is NONE for arguing otherwise. To argue for any other point of development is purely arbitrary.

Let's set that aside for the moment. Let's say we don't know, and more, that we CANNOT know.

Now, where does that leave us?

That leaves us with a moral obligation to err on the side of caution.

Let me illustrate:

You are hired to demolish a building, and all the explosives have been planted, the area is cleared, and the countdown has begun. At T-5 seconds someone runs up and yells, "STOP! STOP! There are some homeless people in there! I saw them! They're sleeping on the second floor!"

Can you push the button? Can you detonate the explosives? Of course not. You are guilty of murder if those homeless people are killed. (At least 2nd degree, I would think.)

Well, what if someone else comes up and says, "Don't any any attention, this guy's a kook. There's nobody in there. It's just a pile of mannikins under some trash. Go ahead and blow the building."

"No, NO! They are PEOPLE! I saw them MOVE!"

"He's an idiot. Blow the building."

Can you go ahead? Do you press that button?

Of course not. There is a difference of opinion. One voice says there are people in there, one says there are none. If there ARE, and you proceed, you are guilty of murder, and that second opinion will not be a defense in court.

In exactly the same way, if we do not know when a person makes his appearance in the mother's womb, we have no right to assume an arbitrary date, and to destroy anything that exists before that date. We MUST err on the side of protecting life.

OR, we must stop pretending to be civilized in any meaningful way. We join the Nazis in arbitrarily deciding who is worthy to live and who is not. We make life and death decisions based on who pleases us, and who does not.

Surely, there must be someone at MSNBC who recognizes that Ms. Harris-Perryis a raving lunatic, when it comes to discussing parenthood and governmentintervention with regards to raising your children.Is this woman for real?But then we must not forget, that liberalism is tantamount to giving ignorancea political voice. God help us from liberals like Harris-Perry.

NO, jackass. Her parents are supposed to know what their responsibilities are and to council the child on her flourishing womanhood. And it doesn't matter what the circumstances are, at that age the girl and the baby are essentially innocent. The sperm donor/rapist/pedo is guilty and should be chained to the monetary support of that child until it reaches the age of majority.

I watched her program when this woman explained why the state should provide the wherewithall to raise children. Her idiocy was apparent. I haven't watched the show since but do check the listings to see if a good travel documentary has replaced the silliness.